New Blood

#26
#26
VolBeef88 said:
Those "big money" boosters you speak of may know just a tad more about NCAA football and business than the average poster on this board.

Trust me, if the evil "big money" boosters see a change is warranted they will make noise.
Click to expand...

you just made my point for me by describing a good ol boys network. although I didn't go as far as you did by classifying them as "evil".
 
#27
#27
MG1968 said:
and to point to a crucial difference between a business and UT football...

UT football doesn't have to be successful to bring in tons of money.
Click to expand...


You sir are grossly mistaken and that statement disqualifies any credibility you may have had. :salute:
 
#31
#31
MG1968 said:
you just made my point for me by describing a good ol boys network. although I didn't go as far as you did by classifying them as "evil".
Click to expand...


All big schools have boosters. SOme can make larger donations than others. That by no means makes it a good ole boy system. The more you type the clearer your lack of knowledge on this subject becomes.
 
#32
#32
then perhaps you'd care to enlighten me (and others) on how this whole thing works.
 
#33
#33
MG1968 said:
then prove me wrong
Click to expand...


Simple math. 10,000 seats at an average of just $35 is 350,000 a game. With 8 home games that is over 2.8 million and that doesn't even take into account concessions and parking or any other revenue opportunities.







 
#34
#34
ok, but how does that translate into success on the field. my point was that even a losing football season still makes money for UT.

a business that only has 45% of the previous year's success will generally lose a lot of money or at best, break even.
 
#36
#36
VolBeef88 said:
Simple math. 10,000 seats at an average of just $35 is 350,000 a game. With 8 home games that is over 2.8 million and that doesn't even take into account concessions and parking or any other revenue opportunities.







Click to expand...

but for every fan that chooses not to make it to a tennessee game, there's probably at least two more that's willing to get in. it would take a long time of losing not to finally fill all the seats at neyland. and again, a good majority of the fanbase is going to stick by UT no matter what.
 
#37
#37
Who is the bigger winner in sports, the Chicago Cubs or Florida Marlins? Cubs bring in huge $ and have a dedicated fan base, but haven't won a world series in nearly a century. Marlins have few fans and comparatively low $ receipts, but they've won on the field.

Lets use an even clearer example. In college football, who is the bigger winner between the two, U of Miami or Tennessee. Tennessee makes such more money, but the U has the titles. Most would tell you that the U is more successful.

In sports, success should = winning.
 
#38
#38
General Jack said:
Who is the bigger winner in sports, the Chicago Cubs or Florida Marlins? Cubs bring in huge $ and have a dedicated fan base, but haven't won a world series in nearly a century. Marlins have few fans and comparatively low $ receipts, but they've won on the field.

Lets use an even clearer example. In college football, who is the bigger winner between the two, U of Miami or Tennessee. Tennessee makes such more money, but the U has the titles. Most would tell you that the U is more successful.

In sports, success should = winning.
Click to expand...

wow. this makes so much sense to me i'm scared. why can't other people realize this?
 
#39
#39
MG1968 said:
ok, but how does that translate into success on the field. my point was that even a losing football season still makes money for UT.

a business that only has 45% of the previous year's success will generally lose a lot of money or at best, break even.
Click to expand...


There is a direct correlation to success on the field and revenue generated. It was posted on this thread that only 6 teams made money and UT was one of them. The success on the field definition is what makes this a silly discussion. What you or I consider success and what others/majority consider success differs greatly.
A 10,000 drop in attendance would probably cost UT 5-6 million conservatively and you would see change post haste.


 
#40
#40
VolBeef88 said:
There is a direct correlation to success on the field and revenue generated. It was posted on this thread that only 6 teams made money and UT was one of them. The success on the field definition is what makes this a silly discussion. What you or I consider success and what others/majority consider success differs greatly.
A 10,000 drop in attendance would probably cost UT 5-6 million conservatively and you would see change post haste.
Click to expand...

I agree, revenues typically following winning; exceptions occur in instances like with Tennessee, when you have such a dedicated fan base that will still pay for an underperforming product.

While this dedication to an extent perpetuates the problem, the fan based deserves a better product for their dedication.
 
#41
#41
General Jack said:
Who is the bigger winner in sports, the Chicago Cubs or Florida Marlins? Cubs bring in huge $ and have a dedicated fan base, but haven't won a world series in nearly a century. Marlins have few fans and comparatively low $ receipts, but they've won on the field.

Lets use an even clearer example. In college football, who is the bigger winner between the two, U of Miami or Tennessee. Tennessee makes such more money, but the U has the titles. Most would tell you that the U is more successful.

In sports, success should = winning.
Click to expand...


Again general it depends on what the fan base considers success and there is also cultural factors at play.

With the Cubs they are not only the franchise bb team in Chicago (a city whose pop is almost the same as the state of Tennessee) but are also a tourist attraction and more of a social event and they have had some success. Again the success depends on your def.

The U receives a TON of donation money and their culture is quite different and they are also a private school with enrollment much smaller than UT or other state funded schools.
 
#42
#42
you're getting off topic and not proving us wrong volbeef. i asked you earlier about the 2005 season and how much the football team made and you've yet to answer it. or maybe you're not getting off topic and you're saying the teh general UT fan base considers UT successful at 9-4. and you've kind of hinted at the latter for some time now
 
#43
#43
volfanbill said:
you're getting off topic and not proving us wrong volbeef. i asked you earlier about the 2005 season and how much the football team made and you've yet to answer it. or maybe you're not getting off topic and you're saying the teh general UT fan base considers UT successful at 9-4. and you've kind of hinted at the latter for some time now
Click to expand...


I
did not see where you asked about how much UT made in 05 and if I did I would have to say I don't know.
Most NCAA football fans at all schools would consider 9 wins a successful year. Not a great year but a successful year.

The original post was using business as an example and that is the direction I have kept my posts.

I think UT had a successful year. I am very disappointed in the outcome of the bowl game and think we should have won the game. We didn't. There were a host of reasons we lost. The game plan in my opinion was not one of them. Turn overs and dropped balls were the biggest factor.


 
#44
#44
can you really not agree that UT is an exception similar to the Cubs you mentioned though? people are still going to come out of the woodwork to make it to a UT game if they can no matter what. most teams make their money off winning, but a team as tradition filled as UT can afford to have a handful of losing seasons before any significant dropoff in attendance or sales would take place.
 
#45
#45
It would appear this happened at Penn State as well. Another loyal losing fan base.
 
#46
#46
VolBeef88 said:
Again general it depends on what the fan base considers success and there is also cultural factors at play.

With the Cubs they are not only the franchise bb team in Chicago (a city whose pop is almost the same as the state of Tennessee) but are also a tourist attraction and more of a social event and they have had some success. Again the success depends on your def.

The U receives a TON of donation money and their culture is quite different and they are also a private school with enrollment much smaller than UT or other state funded schools.
Click to expand...

No two sets of fact patterns are ever going to be exactly the same. My point is that the goal in competitive sports should be winning, not revenue. I think most would agree.

For the record, I am historically not anti-Fulmer, I like him actually for many reasons (loyalty, love for the state, university and the football program, and because in general he's a good guy). But I am part of a growing trend of moderates moving toward the "need for a change" crowd. Top recruiting classes, tons of support, huge financial resources, and a top 10 salary should translate into better performances on the field. It was so frustrating to see a strong start to the season revert back to the same old crap (ala 2005).

I really hope that Fulmer is able to "find it" next year. He will have 2 top 3-5 recruiting classes, a good senior QB as well as many other starters returning.
 
#47
#47
finevol said:
As far as the companys I have worked for, most do not keep their managers in one spot to long. The reason for this is that the managers may become complacent in their daily routine working with the same people. The managers become to close to the employees and treat them like friends and not workers. So they move them around more to the different stores. It sounds like this could do wonders for our team. We get new blood and everyone makes out better for it. With new coaches come new ideas and can refresh a team. Even if you like CPF mabye will need a fresh look and new blood.
Click to expand...

If it ain't broke don't fix it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top